User talk:3family6

This is a Wikipediauser page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:3family6.

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 1,300 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions, including a brand new one for the single largest wikified article! All you have to do is put an asterisk next to the largest article you've wikified, and coordinators will check its wordcount after the drive ends. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

None. The reason I reverted the addition of that file was because the sample in the article did not link to the Commons file. Thus, I could not verify the licensing status of the work, and did not know that it was on Commons. Go ahead and re-add it, but make sure to supply a link to the Commons file.--¿3family6contribs 14:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. If I understand you well, I have added the link in the article too quickly. Ftiercel (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears you tried to add the file as you would an image. I went ahead and restored the file, using a template that links to the Commons info.--¿3family6contribs 15:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday.

Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November.

In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles.

For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges.

Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Hello! Since you're a member of the Discography WikiProject, would you be interested in commenting at or reviewing my FLC for Guy Sebastian discography? There hasn't been any activity there for over a month, so any input would be appreciated. Thank you! — Usfun8991 05:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello 3family6. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Crabcore".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crabcore}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Your addition of an info box to the above is a nicely done and welcome one. Indeed, I am afraid to meddle with it for fear of spoiling it. However, one belligerent force has been forgotten: the Royal Lao Air Force. Could you be so kind as to dub it in?

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Listener (musician) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Dan Smith (American musician). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

I'm not sure what this has to do with me - I don't remember doing this copy-paste. You redirected the Dan Smith article to the Listener band article without any explanation as to why. The Dan Smith article does have some of the same content as the Listener band article, but that's merely because the Dan Smith article is summarizing what is in the Listener article. That kind of overlap is okay. I didn't create any of the major content in those articles anyway, so I don't know why you are bringing this to me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor was deployed to several hundred remaining wikis as an opt-in beta feature at the end of November, except for most Wiktionaries (which depend heavily upon templates) and all Wikisources (which await integration with ProofreadPage).

Basic support for editing tables is available. You can insert new tables, add and remove rows and columns, set or remove a caption for a table, and merge cells together. To change the contents of a cell, double-click inside it. More features will be added in the coming months. In addition, VisualEditor now ignores broken, invalid rowspan and colspan elements, instead of trying to repair them.

You can now use find and replace in VisualEditor, reachable through the tool menu or by pressing ⌃ Ctrl+F or ⌘ Cmd+F.

You can now create and edit simple <blockquote> paragraphs for quoting and indenting content. This changes a "Paragraph" into a "Block quote".

Some new keyboard sequences can be used to format content. At the start of the line, typing "* " will make the line a bullet list; "1. " or "# " will make it a numbered list; "==" will make it a section heading; ": " will make it a blockquote. If you didn't mean to use these tools, you can press undo to undo the formatting change. There are also two other keyboard sequences: "[[" for opening the link tool, and "{{" for opening the template tool, to help experienced editors. The existing standard keyboard shortcuts, like ⌃ Ctrl+K to open the link editor, still work.

If you add a category that has been redirected, then VisualEditor now adds its target. Categories without description pages show up as red.

VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme designed by the User Experience group. The new theme will be visible for desktop systems at MediaWiki.org in late December and at other sites early January. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" theme and the new "MediaWiki" one which will replace it.)

The Editing team plans to add auto-fill featuresfor citations in January. Planned changes to the media search dialog will make choosing between possible images easier.

Translations of the user guide for most languages are oudated. Ukrainian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Dutch translators are nearly current. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language.

Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC.

File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta.

Hi! I noticed from the template's talk page history that you seemed like an involved editor there who may have an opinion on a discussion going on at WP:ALBUMS about rendering ratings. Would you care to weigh in here? Dan56 (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season.

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all!

114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal!

For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here.

We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup.

Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Thank you for all you have done to help me with the Boat Race articles. Tonight we hit a landmark, over 50% of the race articles are now Good or Featured Articles, which is a monumental achievement considering that none of the articles even existed eight months ago. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review of this article. I believe I will be able to address most of the issues you uncovered; however, because of a project I have taken on recently it will take me some time. Hopefully others can help also.Phmoreno (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted a response, so I know what's up. Good luck on your project!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 3family6 - thank you very much for taking on the review of Brabant Revolution and dealing with it so efficiently! I just wondered, if I can possibly ask, whether you might be willing to take on the GA review of another Belgian history article I've had nominated for some time. Unfortunately I'm going to have to take a wikibreak of several months from next month or so (real life calling unfortunately) so I am really hoping to have all my GA nominations wrapped up by then if at all possible! Anyway, let me know if you're willing to give it a quick look. All the best & thanks again, —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I have quite a list of nominations to review, but I can adjust. I'm a contestant in the GA Cup, so I certainly don't mind more nominations to review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 3family6 - many thanks indeed for your excellent review! I've just got one more, if you possibly have a moment, Hubert Pierlot (on a similar theme) but I can certainly understand if you've had enough of Belgian history for one lifetime! All the best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's fine, I'll take it on. It might take several days, though. At least my grad applications are done, so I've got more time.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As for Belgian history, I don't know much about it other than what I got in Western Civ 101, so I love doing these reviews. I've done far more GARs for medieval Norse-Gaelic and Hungarian rulers, so three Belgian articles won't bother me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, I'm in a similar position myself. Unfortunately exams still call too, so (hopefully) I'll be able to resist the temptation to return to Wiki for a bit. Hopefully I'll stop myself nominating any GAs any time soon anyway! Many thanks for taking it on - I've taken the liberty of awarding you a barnstar for your trouble too! Best of luck with the cup. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ole Børud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Death (band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Thanks. I lost my cool a bit last night and got carried away with this editor and their stubbornness, so thank you for intervening here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Uniquark9, though we've gotten along badly, and your activities are frequently disruptive, you do good research, and have a better working knowledge in this area than I do. There's still a lot of work to be done on the Genghis Khan and other Mongol-related articles, so I hope that we can both deal with this in a better way, and be more productive editors.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical sources: The Secret History of Mongols, Altan Tobchi, Rashid Ad-din's Compendium of Chronicles and ]]Yuan Shi]]. The Secret History and Altan Tobchi have vey similar contents and Compendium of Chronicles was written by a persian historian during the Ilkhanate. Yuan shi is considered less reliable because it was written during the Ming dynasty by chinese historians and "it has been criticised by imperial Chinese scholars for its lack of quality and numerous errors, attributed to the haste with which it was compiled."(excerpt from its page) Except these few sources there is no other historical record. I really want to read the original proposal by Ratchnevsky, unfortunately nothing is found. Also theory is a very strong word, suggestion/hypothesis is more appropriate. I guess you couldn't find any other source which has not quoted or mentioned Ratchnevsky's suggestion on this case. So the rule is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Ratchnevsky's claim can be be considered as a exceptional source? Probably not. So i am wondering if it's even worth mentioning?Uniquark9 (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention Plano Carpini and William of Rubruck.Uniquark9 (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Secret History of the Mongols is a literary work, not a historical record, but since it's the only source for most of the early events in Chinggis Khan's life, we have to use it, though with some discretion (for instance, the talking head scene is probably not something to be mentioned as a real historical event). But yes, having taken a class in Mongol History, those sources you mentioned are the only one's we have to work with. I want to read the scholarship by Ratchnevsky as well. But his claim is not exceptional, since many historians apparently lend some credence to it. Whether you think that they should or not doesn't matter for Wikipedia, since Wikipedia merely summarizes the opinions found in reliable sources, and doesn't publish original research.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more than deserving for what you've done and yet the least I can do. I wanted to walk away from Wikipedia for a few years while my own life takes over, but I was waiting for those articles to be reviewed and (hopefully) pass, as they were. So cheers for reviewing the three of them because it concludes my work, and for others there are more alternative music articles that have been written to a good level, hopefully inspiring others. Keep doing what you're doing, peace. Jonjonjohny (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though!

Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all!

Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month.

In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [1] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish!

The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's appearance, the coming Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

The Wikimedia Foundation has named its top priorities for this quarter (January to March). The first priority is making VisualEditor ready for deployment by default to all new users and logged-out users at the remaining large Wikipedias. You can help identify these requirements. There will be weekly triage meetings which will be open to volunteers beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Tell Vice President of Engineering Damon Sicore, Product Manager James Forrester and other team members which bugs and features are most important to you. The decisions made at these meetings will determine what work is necessary for this quarter's goal of making VisualEditor ready for deployment to new users. The presence of volunteers who enjoy contributing MediaWiki code is particularly appreciated. Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins.

Due to some breaking changes in MobileFrontend and VisualEditor, VisualEditor was not working correctly on the mobile site for a couple of days in early January. The teams apologize for the problem.

The new design for VisualEditor aligns with MediaWiki's Front-End Standards as led by the Design team. Several new versions of the OOjs UI library have also been released, and these also affect the appearance of VisualEditor and other MediaWiki software extensions. Most changes were minor, like changing the text size and the amount of white space in some windows. Buttons are consistently color-coded to indicate whether the action:

starts a new task, like opening the Save page dialog: blue ,

takes a constructive action, like inserting a citation: green ,

might remove or lose your work, like removing a link: red , or

is neutral, like opening a link in a new browser window: gray.

The TemplateData editor has been completely re-written to use a different design (T67815) based on the same OOjs UI system as VisualEditor (T73746). This change fixed a couple of existing bugs (T73077 and T73078) and improved usability.

Search and replace in long documents is now faster. It does not highlight every occurrence if there are more than 100 on-screen at once (T78234).

Editors at the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias requested the ability to use VisualEditor in the "Article Incubator" or drafts namespace (T86688, T87027). If your community would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace on your wiki, then you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.

The Editing team will soon add auto-fill featuresfor citations. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to contribute to the Citoid service's definitions for each website, to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections.

We will need editors to help test the new design of the special character inserter, especially if you speak Welsh, Breton, or another language that uses diacritics or special characters extensively. The new version should be available for testing next week. Please contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF) if you would like to be notified when the new version is available. After the special character tool is completed, VisualEditor will be deployed to all users at Phase 5 Wikipedias. This will affect about 50 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh. The date for this change has not been determined.

Join the weekly bug triage meetings beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. Contact James F. for more information.

Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 19:00 UTC.

I think User:Uniquark9‎ does have a point regarding the definition of Turkic khanates. How about adding something like "This list does not include non-Turkic khanates that later became Turkicized" in the beginning of the List of Turkic dynasties and countries article, and then follow this rule in it? Or maybe try to add a separate section somewhere to specifically list Turkicized khanates? Obviously Turkic khanates and Turkicized khanates are not exactly the same thing. --Evecurid (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The list right now states "The following is an incomplete list of historical dynasties which had Turkic origins or the country they ruled were Turkic-speaking. The list also includes modern countries with significant Turkic populations or with an official Turkic language." And the listing of Golden Horde states "Majority of the population were Turkic peoples.[19]" So the list does include "non-Turkic khanates that became Turkicized," Uniquark9 is just trying to change the scope of the list without establishing consensus. The Golden Horde listing mentions that it is listed because of the majority population, so I really don't think much more elaboration is in order, although I think the notice should mention that it was established as a Mongolian khanate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As I was unable to find a discussion for this dispute in any of the related talk pages, I had to leave it in your talk page. I saw you just started a new thread in Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which is definitely a good thing. --Evecurid (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. thanks for taking the GA review on for New History Warfare Vol. 3: To See More Light - I've been waiting a while, so I appreciate it. Just one thing to note, though: I'm going away for a few days and will likely have no internet access between Monday 9 and Friday 13 of February - I hope this isn't going to harm the article's chances of promotion, since I'll not be able to edit it during that period. I'll definitely be back from Saturday 14 February though, and I'll give it my full attention. Any queries, let me know. Thanks again! — sparklismhey! 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

i am not nationalist, I have not done anything. i am on your side and i do not trust wikipedia, the Mongols agree not even whit refernser on for example naimans, khereid, golden horde etc.:@ Mehmeett21 16:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it.

Your responses will only be visible to the three judges.

Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition!

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

I know you are trying to stop the edit war in List of Turkic dynasties and countries, but I think you have been involved in the edit war yourself as well. I believe it would be better for you to be calm down a little and become uninvolved in the war itself for a while too. In the mean time, it would probably be a good idea to try to solve the problem by other means, for example by referring to relevant Wikipedia policy for resolving such edit wars. As you might have noticed User:Damotclese had left a message in the article talk page recently. Do you by any chance know if it is an official policy of Wikipedia? Also are there any other Wikipedia policies applicable to current situation? Thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about if it is official policy. The comment that Damotclese left was their comment, nothing more, nothing less. Their mention about how entries should be based on reliable sources is referring to Wikipedia policy. Their comment about languages is not referring to any specific policy or guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What I meant in my previous comment is that I would like to know any relevant Wikipedia policies for resolving edit wars in such situation, and it may also be a better idea for you to resolve such situation by directly referring to Wikipedia policies (and by linking to the policy page at the same time). Obviously I know the comment that Damotclese left was their comment, but what I wanted to know is that if it is an actual Wikipedia policy that the actual edits should mostly depend on the existence of suitable references and the scholars who wrote them, rather than the knowledge of the editors about the subject. Sorry I might not have explained things well in my previous message. --Evecurid (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for clarifying. The policy is verifiability, which states "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The content guideline associated with this policy is WP:RS, which helps editors understand the consensus on how to use, and what counts as, reliable sources here on the English language Wikipedia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The basic idea for WP:RS is straightforward, and I think it is not the real issue in our particular case (I am referring to the edit war). But how about more complicated situations, such as when there is a source saying so, but other editors are sure that is in fact not the case, or editors are sure that the info in one source is better than the other source? Compared with the basic idea of WP:RS, these are more relevant to our situations. That is why I mentioned that I would like to know any *relevant* Wikipedia (sub)-policies for resolving edit wars in our particular case. Hope you can get what I mean. --Evecurid (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In the case of disputes, Wikipedia policy is that editors should develop a consensus, which is what we are now attempting to do on the talk page. There is an essay which, though not a policy or guideline, helps explain how the process works. When you get sources that disagree or conflict with one another, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality holds that all major views be presented. This is also something that consensus can help flesh out - which sources do we consider authoritative? For what? And why? I agree with you that I need to step back myself in editing the article, since I'm getting caught up in the edit war.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people were unclear on the difference between the two and I belived the difference was the music videos, I just need so clarity for the future as to the real difference. Thank youPeachywink (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't include music videos. Those would be better in a discography list.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually that's not where they go. I think they are normally placed in videographies because I looked at lady gaga's, katy perry's and a few other to get an idea for what was normal for music artist to have in filmographies and for all the filmographie links to a videography that includes the MV and the discographies do not have them. Also about the english...I'm actually american but I'm dyslexic with a reading/writing learning disability so you can change it however you feel is appropriatePeachywink (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats!

Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year.

We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition.

There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form.

Absolutely. This guy is solidly notable. Commercial success is not necessary for notability, it merely can indicate it. The coverage of the subject in multiple reliable, independent sources is the ultimate determiner of notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)